In Advaita there is no concept of Vaikuntha, Shiva loka, etc. All Upasakas of all deities will attain One Brahmaloka, the Fourteenth loka, called also Satya loka. The upasakas reaching there will see that loka as their upasya devata loka.
In the Narayaneeyam, the author has given expression to this in the following verse:
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/7nv
मूर्तित्रयेश्वरसदाशिवपञ्चकं यत् प्राहुः परात्मवपुरेव सदाशिवोऽस्मिन् ।
तत्रेश्वरस्तु स विकुण्ठपदस्त्वमेव त्रित्वं पुनर्भजसि सत्यपदे त्रिभागे ॥ ९०२॥
One can see the commentary thereof and other details in this article:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qm4ifz4kavff61i/Hari_Hara_abheda
Now, we see this idea stated in the Mahabharata:
It is on page 3343 of the 4000 odd page pdf on archive:
Nilakantha’s commentary for verses 50 and 51:
https://archive.org/details/mahabharata_nk/page/n3341/mode/2up
It says –
सप्तैव संहारमुपप्लवानिसंभाव्य संतिष्ठति जीवलोके ।
ततोऽव्ययं स्थानमनन्तमेतिदेवस्य विष्णोरथ ब्रह्मणथ ।
शेषस्य चैवाथ नरस्य चैवदेवस्य विष्णोः परमस्य चैव ॥
संहारकाले परदिग्धकायाब्रह्माणमायान्ति सदा प्रजाहि ।
चेष्टात्मनो देवगणाश्च सर्वेये ब्रह्मलोके ह्यमराः स्म तेऽपि ॥
प्रजानिसर्गे तु स शेषकालेस्थानानि स्वान्येव सरन्ति जीवाः ।
निःशेषतस्तत्पदं वान्ति चान्तेसर्वे देवा ये सदृशा मनुष्याः ॥
Nilakantha gives good details and also says that beyond even this Brahmaloka, is the absolute mukti, the Advaitic liberation, that is not any loka.
Om Tat Sat
Adbhutam's Blog 
Please do read the following for the English translation from here (if required):
From ५०/50th verse:
Click to access 20F_Chapter_280_2.pdf
Thank you so much dīpaka mahodaya & also thanks to the blogger mahodaya (सुब्रह्मण्यमहोदयः) for quoting नीलकण्ठस्य व्याख्या, I had an opportunity to read it from the quoted link, his व्याख्या is crystal clear. And thank you once again dīpaka mahodaya for quoting 6th centaury bhāskara-1 paying obeisance to शिवः in the गणितपादः of आर्यभटीयभाष्यम्।
Kind regards. 😌
P.S.: Of course, in advaitam there are no लोकाः as advaitam is beyond the वैकुण्ठलोकः, गोलोकः, कैलासलोकः & even मणिद्वीपलोकः, but in the व्यावहारिकसत्ता, the deities appear the way as aforesaid in the महाभारतम्।
ओन्नमश्शिवाय। 🙏🏼
By: विवेकः (viveka) on October 21, 2022
at 6:02 pm
श्रीनीलकण्ठचतुर्धरस्य व्याख्या अत्र स्थाप्यते सम्प्रति। यूयं जिज्ञासवः पश्यत/पठत।
तत्तु स्थानं देवस्य केचिद्देवस्य महादेवस्य सम्बन्धि कैलासमिति वदन्ति शाम्भवाः। विष्णोर्वैकुण्ठमिति वैष्णवाः। ब्रह्मणो लोक इति हैरण्यगर्भाः। शेषस्य अनन्तस्येति तद्भक्ताः। नरस्य जीवस्य तत्परं स्थानमिति साङ्ख्याः।
देवस्य द्योतमानस्य चिन्मात्रस्य विष्णोर्व्यापकस्य परब्रह्मणः तुर्यमूर्तिस्वरूपस्य परमस्येति तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम् इति श्रुतिप्रसिद्धं इत्यौपनिषदाः।
………………..
P.S.: अत्र अवसाने तुर्यमूर्तिस्वरूपस्य इति नाम तुर्य-अमूर्तिस्वरूपस्य इति आचार्यः नीलकण्ठचतुर्धरः वक्तुकामः बभूव। अमूर्तेः स्वरूपं किम्? अमूर्तेः स्वरूपमेव न द्योतयति। परन्तु अत्र स्वरूपं नाम अरूपमिति। अस्मिन् प्रसङ्गे अमूर्तिस्वरूपो नाम रूपातीतेति विज्ञेयः। तदेव तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम्। रूपातीतः वैकुण्ठस्यातीतेति (सर्वेषां लोकानाम् अतीतेति) विज्ञेयः।
ओन्नमश्शिवाय। 🙏🏼
By: विवेकः (viveka) on October 21, 2022
at 6:58 pm
Namaskarams mama. It’s interesting. I was listening to Dr TS Sathyavathi’s lecdem on Dikshithar’s Soundararajam Ashraye. She explained that Durithapaha Vaikuntham means Vishnu is Vaikuntha. It is in agreement with your reference to how there is no concept of Loka on Advaitha Mukthi. But it’s also slightly different in a way because she said Vishnu is Vaikuntha. What are your views about that mama ?
By: ramanujadasan2192 on October 21, 2022
at 7:31 pm
Nice to hear from you after so long. I think the expression ‘Vishnu is Vaikuntham’ will get translated to ‘Shiva is Kailasam’ and so on. It will be the same loka that each deity’s Upasaka will perceive as his upasya devata loka. This way it will fit in well with what Narayana Bhattatiri says in Narayaneeyam and the Mahabharata statement.
By: adbhutam on October 22, 2022
at 6:58 am
ओन्नमश्शिवाय। 🙏🏼
Please remember the विष्णुसहस्रनामस्तोत्रम्, in between we keep reciting the following verse.
वैकुण्ठः पुरुषः प्राणः प्राणदः प्रणवः पृथुः।
हिरण्यगर्भश्शत्रुघ्नो व्याप्तो वायुरधोक्षजः॥
वैकुण्ठः is indeed also a name of विष्णुः, even the same can be inferred from the अमरकोशः
The beauty is the जगद्गुरोः विष्णुसहस्रनामभाष्यम्, आचार्यः has defined the word वैकुण्ठः wonderfully, let’s see here:
विष्णुसहस्रनामटीकायां जगद्गुरुराचार्यस्त्वाह विविधा कुण्ठा गतेः प्रतिहतिः विकुण्ठा, विकुण्ठायाः कर्त्ता इति वैकुण्ठः।
There’s also a saying which I have in my memory is as follows: विविधा कुण्ठा माया विद्यतेऽस्य वैकुण्ठः
जगद्गुरुः भगवत्पादः has quoted the following verse from शान्तिपर्व of महाभारतम्
मया संश्लेषिता भूमिरद्भिर्व्योम्ना च वायुना।
वायुश्च तेजसा सार्द्धं वैकुण्ठत्वं ततो मम॥
By me भूमिः is united with water (भूमिः अद्भिः सह), आकाशः is united with वायुः (व्योम्ना वायुना सह) & वायुः is united with तेजः (वायुर्तेजसा सार्धम्) Therefore my being is वैकुण्ठः (वैकुण्ठत्वम्)
Yup कैलासः also has many derivations that are available from पुराणानि।
When we feel that वैकुण्ठः has a रूपम्, then it’s ephemeral. If the realization is such that विष्णुः is अनन्तकळ्याणगुणातीतः then that वैकुण्ठः/विष्णुः/परन्धाम/कैलासः/शिवः/मणिद्वीपः/ललिता is nothing but the param brahma which is अनन्तकळ्याणगुणानामतीतः
By: विवेकः (viveka) on October 22, 2022
at 4:43 pm
Please read it as
व्योमा वायुना सह (व्योमा with वायुः) not to be read as व्योम्ना वायुना सह (Sorry)
Also please read it as वायुस्तेजसा सार्धम्
By: विवेकः (viveka) on October 22, 2022
at 4:49 pm
The Following Ashwamedhika parva verse is quoted by Sri Vaishnavites to prove that Rudra(Shiva) is under the control of Brahma.
रुद्रं समाश्रिता देवा रुद्रो ब्रह्माणमाश्रितः॥ 14-118-37 (96881)
ब्रह्मा मामाश्रितो राजन्नाहं कंचिदुपाश्रितः।
How do Advaitic commentators like nilakantha explain verses like the above?
By: Aniruddha on October 23, 2022
at 4:46 am
In Nilakantha’s reading, these chapters do not occur. I have seen Sri Appayya Dikshitar saying that ‘These are such cases where Brahma and Rudra are Vibhuti’s of Narayana.’ So, such portrayal is quite in accordance with that. We must also recognize that the Mahabharata has portrayed Vishnu and Brahma as born from Rudra, meaning they are vibhuti’s of Rudra.
By: adbhutam on October 23, 2022
at 7:28 am
Very Simple:
To all their questions the following as well as the longevity of विष्णुः is the answer!
ब्रह्मत्वं केशवत्वं वा शक्रत्वं वा सुरैस्सह।
त्रैलोक्यस्याधिपत्यं वा तुष्टो रुद्रः प्रयच्छति॥
The state of केशवः/विष्णुः/कृष्णः is granted by रुद्रः when propitiated. All the above states are mere ephemeral. This verse from महाभारतम् bears the commentary of नीलकण्ठः
Śrī-sampradāyinaḥ are non-devotees of नारायणः! (Only those who fight unnecessarily to establish the supremacy amongst the त्रिमूर्तयः) Even the non-devotional notorious madhva has quoted this verse twice in the same बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्
We interpret that verse as parambrahma who is supreme there.
The point is that, all the deities or say whosoever is with form including (वैकुण्ठवासी चतुर्भुजविष्णुः) is “STRICTLY SUBORDINATE” to the निरुपाधिक/निर्गुणपरम्ब्रह्म। Even रुद्रः as well.
The self-realized/even the deities like विष्णुः, रुद्रः associates themselves with that parambrahma which/who is अनन्तकळ्याणगुणातीतः, therefore they themselves are that.
The ephemerality of त्रिमूर्तयः was verily established by भगवान् पराशरः in his पराशरस्मृतिः & a सम्प्रदायविदाचार्यः has penned पराशरमाधवीयः (a commentary to the पराशरस्मृतिः) & that सम्प्रदायविदाचार्यः is श्रीमाधवाचार्यः (श्रीविद्यारण्यः), in order to support their (trinity’s) ephemerality as is established in पराशरस्मृतिः, the commentator has quoted the ephemerality from स्कान्दम् (स्कन्दपुराणम्) & कौर्मम् (कूर्मपुराणम्)
वैदिकाः/devotees believe that there is longevity to the deities who are with form. The longevity of विष्णुः has been explicitly stated in पाद्मम् (पद्मपुराणम्) as follows: महेशस्य चतुर्निःश्वासमात्रेण विष्णोरायुरुदाहृतम्। 5.108.70 & the exact longevity of the trinities has been clearly stated in शैवम् (शिवपुराणम्)
So a devotee of शिवः can easily proclaim that it’s indeed शिवः is परः to विष्णुः based on their longevity. But our वैदिकसम्प्रदायः do not recommend or entertain this very thought itself because शिवः or विष्णुः associate themselves with the अद्वैतपरम्ब्रह्म therefore they are that. That’s why वैदिकसम्प्रदायः never encourages/entertains the distinction between them. The very thought of distinction amongst त्रिमूर्तयः in itself is considered as निन्दा।
व्यावहारिकसत्तायाम् there’s definitely the भेदः, but why should one bother?
An उपासकः of शिवः/विष्णुः can treat their own उपास्यमूर्तिः -> शिवः/विष्णुः respectively as supreme & can perform the उपासना, therefore there is no अन्यदेवतायाः उपासना over here at all. For a devotee of शिवः, शिवः himself is विष्णुः & for a devotee of विष्णुः, विष्णुः himself is शिवः
The interesting part is that, the verse which states the longevity of त्रिमूर्तयः in itself do not entertain the distinction amongst the त्रिमूर्तयः। Such broad mind / दयागुणसम्पन्नः is our वैदिकसम्प्रदायः।/व्यासशङ्कर-सम्प्रदायः।
ओन्नमश्शिवाय। 🙏🏼
By: विवेकः (viveka) on October 23, 2022
at 11:01 am
I meant commentary to the बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् not in the बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्
By: विवेकः (viveka) on October 23, 2022
at 11:38 am
We should also remember that the names Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva and others are not different human like separate entities. In truth they are all different powers, vibhutis, of the same absolute Universal Power. That they have been shown as different human like persons is only to cater to the immature intellect.
By: adbhutam on October 24, 2022
at 7:08 am